06/03/2004 Minutes - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

7. A 14 foot variance for not having proper size loading/unloading facilities at buildings C& D, (code requires 50 ft. and applicant shows 36 ft.), section (1161.13 (D)). 8. A 16 foot variance for width of drive, (code permits a maximum of 34 ft, and applicant shows 50 ft), section (1161.10 (B)). 9. A variance for site illumination spillage at property line, (code permits (0) zero and applicant shows less than 1.0 foot candle) section (1149.041 (fl). Which is in violation of Ord. 90-125 sections (1149.041 (i)), (1149.04 (j)), (1161.05 (w)), (1141.06), (1141.07 (c)), (1161.13 (D)), (1161.10 (B)), and (1149.041 ( fl). Note: 41 Photometric plan submitted is not legible to make an accurate variance write-up. However, readings do appear to be less than 1 foot candle. #2. No dimensioned elevation drawings received to determine if rear yard setback is in compliance. Chairtnan Maloney called all interested parties forward to be sworn in and review the request. Mr. Khori, the President of Carnegie Management, Mr. Berryhill, with Carnegie Management, Councilman IVIcKay, The following residents Mr. Skoulis, Mrs. Diver, Mr. Kross, Mr. Barnett, Mr. Peffer, Mr. Gouker, and Mr. Lipcsey each, came forward to be sworn in and review the request. Mr. Khori reviewed the following changes: 1).The height of the outer buildings B, C, & D, are now each two story instead of four stories however the footprint of the Target building has not changed at all. 2). The underground parking garage has been eliminated. 3). The uses have changed from Retail and Residential to Retail, Office and Community Center. 4.) The building massing footprint has remain the same, but due to the use change of buildings B, C, & D second floor it changes the mixed usage totals. 5). They feel that the compatibility of the proposed use will work on the land better. Office hours are from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. and retail peeks from 6:00 p.m. to close. 6). Mr. Khori assured the board that the Target store plans had not nor would not change from what the Board of Zoning Appeals previously approved. 7). A parking variance is required as well as a variance for the width of the driveway. Applicants believe that the wider driveway will help assure a safer egress. 8). Parking variance is required as well as a front setback for the second floor off?ice use. 9). Applicants believe that if the mounds and fence are taken into consideration the light readings at the property line will be_ zero. The applicants believe that for the most part the plans are basically the same as when they were granted variances the first time. Applicants reasoning for changes were to accommodate the resident's requests and minimize safety issues for the City. Applicants request a variance for parking spaces so that landbank parking is not required. The residents requested more buffering therefore parking spaces have been eliminated. The following residents had the following comments: Mr. Skoulis, Mr. Barnett, Mr. McKay, 1). Residents would like to see all variances granted. 2). There has never been a better plan offered to the City since 1988. 3). Residents believe that any problems they have can be worked out with the developer, themselves and Planning Commission. 4). Applicants have worked with the residents and although there is no longer residential use on the site the developer has assured the residents that the retail will be upscale businesses. 5). There will be offices which are quieter, close earlier than retail shops and bring in more taxes to the City. 6). The residents feel that the Community Center will be an asset to the City overall. The residents also voiced that they were very pleased the way the applicant worked with the residents in developing their proposal. Ms. Wenger stated that although the footprint of the plan has remained basically the same there have been many changes to the development plans. She commended Carnegie for working with the residents and continuing to work with the residents and city to alleviate adverse impacts on the neighboring residents. However, in their efforts to accommodate the residents the plans have changed significantly. Due to the significant changes Council had to readdress this plan as a preliminarily new development plan. She encouraged the Board members to look at the requests as a new plan "not" just thinking of it as just additions to what was approved. She asked the board to focus on the massing variance and the mixed-use totals which do not meet code. Planning Commission was quite clear as to how they felt about the changes and encouraged the board to look at Planning Commissions recommendations. Ms. Wenger voiced that although Mr. Skoulis 7